Wheaton announces homosexuality is not sin...

The distinction between the condemnation of homosexual behavior versus homosexuality is what Jones said is the critical nuance about the Community Covenant.

- Stanton L. Jones is Provost of Wheaton College

Now comes Wheaton College announcing it has "evolved" in its views on sexuality and has come to see the distinction between "homosexual practice" and "homosexuality." You know, that ever-so-popular "critical nuance" distinction between getting it on and getting your flame on. Stanton Jones has been studying sexuality for "thirty years" and he's learned the Apostle Paul was wrong to condemn the effeminate and what's really needed is a cell group on campus where they can be affirmed in their effeminacy. Who cares what the Apostle Paul says?

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. - 1Corinthians 6:9, 10

What on earth was the Apostle Paul thinking to speak this way? Had he never heard of being gay? Was he so callous as to exacerbate the deep angst and alienation experienced by those different from himself?

Who knows.

Meanwhile, Phil Ryken and his fellow academics are posturing themselves halfway between the homophobes and the homosexualists. Which is to say Phil has arrived in Wheaton. And of course the announcement that Wheaton would now provide an officially funded student group that advocates for homosexuals is released with the thinly-veiled threat that anyone who dares to expose Wheaton's denial of God's holiness and the sinfulness of man will be labelled a promoter of homosexual suicide. Read what they say.

The worst thing here is that Wheaton's best and brightest demonstrate utter cluelessness concerning ministry to people tempted by sodomy. To think the Christian shepherd is protecting the souls of his sheep by allowing them to hold on to their effeminacy while requiring them not to act on it is to give these fellow sinners over to the principalities and powers.

On the other hand, Wheaton has long been a union-shop of feminism meaning Wheaton has long denied the Creation Order of Adam first, then Eve, and the laws God gave us concerning the meaning of sexuality in matters of responsibility, authority, and submission. Did anyone really think having rebelled against God's Creation Order concerning sexuality's meaning and purpose outside of intercourse, Wheaton would be able to hold the line on the meaning and purpose of sexuality concerning physical identity and intimacy?

So we're now left with Wheaton in this curious limbo of two-thirds of sexuality left behind—authority and submission, and sexual identity (effeminacy). Can anyone seriously think those who give up Adam's federal headship and cave in on effeminacy will hold the line on the proper fitting together of body parts?

Wheaton has been educated into a stupidity that the uneducated will howl over. Every teenage boy knows what effeminacy is and that it's bad, but Wheaton has seen otherwise.

Androgyny is perfectly fine; just keep those bodies from touching!

If one were to want a point halfway between faith and unbelief in the critical battle of our time, one would not be able to come up with a better place to stand than Phil Ryken and Stanton Jones just adopted. Fifteen years ago I told my wife that, having turned their backs on father-rule, Evangelicals would next move to the approval of sodomy by means of a halfway point of promoting the idea that homosexual identity is morally neutral while trying not to give in totally by saying homosexual copulation is fine.

Anyone who knows and loves people tempted by homosexuality and effeminacy sees through this in a heartbeat. Wheaton's newfound position is an open book to those who really love gays.

So I call on President Ryken and Provost Jones to reverse their position and change the nature of their LGBT group. Announce to everyone that it is now going to be a group designated to help those in bondage to homosexuality and effeminacy to repent and escape this bondage.

Unless Wheaton denies anyone needs to repent of effeminacy.

Simple, isn't it? So very simple.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.


Although this isn't surprising, it is still appalling. Two things:

1. The first line of the officially approved mission statement makes it abundantly clear just how far Wheaton has run off the rails: "To provide a safe, encouraging, biblically faithful community for students who experience a sexual orientation and/or gender identity that varies from the majority." NB their use of "varies from the majority" instead of "which is contrary to God's word."

2. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Christians wrestle with sexual sins (both thought and deed). Yet, one of the appalling aspects of this group is that they are encouraging young men and women to think of their identity in terms of their sin. Contrast this with Pastor Vaughn Roberts, the British pastor who has acknowledged wrestling with same-sex attraction:

"Julian: Does the disclosure that same sex attraction is one of your personal battles mean you are defining yourself as a homosexual?

Vaughan: No, it doesn’t. It’s important to reiterate that I have acknowledged a struggle in all eight of the areas the book covers and not just in one. The brokenness of the fallen world afflicts us all in various ways. We will be conscious of different battles to varying degrees at different moments of a day and in different seasons of our lives. No one battle, of the many we face, however strongly, defines us, but our identity as Christians flows rather from our relationship with Christ.

All of us are sinners, and sexual sinners. But, if we have turned to Christ, we are new creations, redeemed from slavery to sin through our union with Christ in his death and raised with him by the Spirit to a new life of holiness, while we wait for a glorious future in his presence when he returns. These awesome realities define me and direct me to the kind of life I should live. In acknowledging that I know something of all eight battles covered in my book, therefore, I’m not making a revelation about my fundamental identity, other than that, like all Christians, I am a sinner saved by grace, called to live in the brokenness of a fallen world until Christ returns and brings all our battles to an end."

I would encourage anyone interested in this subject to read the entire interview with Vaughn Roberts. While there are parts I disagree with, I appreciate his directness: http://e-n.org.uk/p-6028-A-battle-I-face.htm

Best wishes,


I'm discussing this (via email) with a friend and former Wheaton faculty member who defends Ryken and jones as rock solid. So, for the sake of argument, let me grant that my friend is correct. 

Even so, aren't they granting too much to the enemy by uncritically using existentialist concepts such as "gender identity"?

Sodomy is a more familiar term than effeminacy. How do they relate? I can't tell if you are using the terms to mean the same thing, or different things.

As in: (1 Corinthians 6:9) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

The first one basically means "soft", the second one basically means "men-bedders."

Effeminacy is carriage, dress, speech, etc. It's every aspect of our conduct stopping just short of touch. Sodomy is the rest.


Sodomy and effeminacy don't necessarily come as a package, one can be a sodomite without being effeminate. And vice versa. With all the attention on Sodomy, how does one address effeminacy? Another way to ask, a heterosexual man comes to you but is effeminate, how would you counsel him to change, other than to buy different clothing?

David A. Booth,

Thanks for the link to the Rev. Vaughn Roberts' interview. No doubt his openness about his battle with same-sex attraction with bring hope and encouragement to many. 

Effeminacy on the part of a man with homosexual desires is lethal for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is the signing of availability and desire to other men of homosexual desires. So it must be repented of and consciously removed. Depending on the man, it might mean a change of music and clothing and carriage. It might mean rebuilt patterns of speech. All of such things are a part of fleeing temptation and making no provision for the flesh. Men—all men—are to be taught to sign their masculinity in obedience to the Seventh Commandment. Similarly Christian women are to be taught to sign their femininity in obedience to the Seventh Commandment.

Of course, the application of this generality to the particular is very personal and will vary from culture to culture, person to person. This however doesn't change the fact that effeminacy is sin and must be repented of.

And yes, heterosexual men also can be sinfully effeminate. For instance, for a man who is a church officer to connive at the effeminacy of men under his care out of fear of being judged harsh or unloving might                                                             well be described as that church officer's effeminacy.


How can it be, that the Lord said if a man lusts after a woman, he has committed adultery, unambiguously declaring that inclinations against God's law are *de facto* lawbreaking, yet to burn for another man is not? Here in Kansas City (Independence, actually) an aborted baby was found at the sewer treatment plant. Cops are asking for witnesses, informants. We don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blow, yet we cannot read the signs of the times.

    Wheaton's is just taking a first step--- this clearly is just a temporary position. If you can't express moral disapproval, how can you keep on forbidding the behavior?

    I bet they're crumbling on all fronts, not just homosexuality. I was looking around to see what remnants of the no-drinking no-dancing Wheaton existed, and I found a couple of interesting webpages: 

1. "While enrolled in Wheaton College, undergraduate members of the community will refrain from the consumption of alcohol or the use of tobacco in all settings."  The Community Covenant, http://www.wheaton.edu/about-wheaton/community-covenant . 

2. "Wellness Housing - Students living in "Wellness" housing commit to abstain from the use of cigarettes, alcohol, and other drugs. Once you select a room in a designated Wellness area, you will be required to sign a contract confirming that commitment.  Residents who select to live in this area will be asked to sign a Community Contractwhen they sign into a room.  Our Wellness areas for  2012-13 are Larcom, Young, the third floor of Chapin, and the third and fourth floor of Meadows North." "Special Interest Housing,"


As so often is the case, the more you probe, the worse it gets. The agreement a student signs to get into "Wellness Housing" with the few other students who have the "special interest" of abiding by Wheaton's supposed universal policy is worth reading. http://wheatoncollege.edu/residential-life/files/2012/03/Wellness-Community-Contract.pdf . Why would anyone want to live in an alcohol-free dorm, where in addition you have to agree not to come home visibly drunk? To guard your health, of course! Or, if you're not  focussed on living as long a life as possible, it might be you have some mental problems: "You or close friends/families may have issues around alcohol and/or drugs; or may be a recovering alcoholic or drug addict."  You probably have hangups about fornication too, but, sorry, there's no special-interest housing for that.  

       I'm sure Wheaton is standing firm against smoking, though. Maybe dancing too, or at least  the foxtrot and that dangerous "big band" music that corrupts so many of our modern youth.   

p.s.: I know it's small by comparison to the moral issue, but as a professor I'm also bothered by using "issues around" to mean "object to". It's, like,  one of those-like shibboleths of the teenage girl, like, mentality. I hope Mr. Ryken didn't write it himself. 

I clicked on one of your 'announcement' links and read this shocking declaration.

These students, whether they are sometimes or all the time attracted to the same sex, it’s not necessarily a sin. When you act on something, when you move in that direction, when you pursue a direction, that is something that we would definitely need to look at in light of the Covenant. We could say the same for heterosexual students. If a heterosexual student lusts after someone, then that is something we need to actually challenge as they are breaking the Community Covenant, because sexual purity is for everyone.”

Just by this, heterosexuals are discriminated against when they commit a sin by their thoughts, they will be in violation of the Covenant, but if a homosexual has such thoughts of same-sex attraction, well as long as it is not acted upon, they are sexually pure. 

Deeply grieved.

Tim, I may have missed something, but I did not see anything in the article you linked accepting of effeminacy – or even talking about effeminacy. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines effeminate as follows:

1: having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner

2: marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement <effeminate art> <an effeminate civilization>

The article I read talks about attraction to members of the same sex, but not about effeminacy. I have known a fair number of homosexuals in my 63 years, some fairly well, and while some of them were indeed effeminate, others were far from it.

While, as a former "Wheatie," I would have preferred that Wheaton not enter into this spiritual minefield, let’s not read more into this than is there. As for Provost Jones, I believe that he is correct in saying that while homosexual behavior is a sin, the mere attraction to members of the same sex, if not acted upon, is no more sin than the attraction a heterosexual feels to members of the opposite sex. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is not to the contrary. It’s clear that Paul is describing behaviors, not merely states of temptation, here, so there is no reason to believe that Paul in using the term "homosexual" is referring to anyone other than those who practice homosexuality. Indeed, the ESV, generally recognized as the most reformed-friendly English translation, translates the Greek as "men who practice homosexuality."

We all have our temptations, and it is the giving in to temptation, not the temptation itself, that is sinful.

The Community Covenant still makes homosexual behavior a violation of the covenant, and while it’s certainly possible that the acceptance of Refuge as an official student group may turn out to have been just a step in the slippery slope toward the denial of scriptural truth condemning homosexual behavior, I do not believe that it can be fairly said that it in itself signals such a denial.

Dear Dave,

Yes, I think you have missed some things. We're dealing here with the politics of identity and the world is saying men have no control over being homosexual and so they should not be penalized for it. This is the entire basis of the sodomite marriage movement. Equal rights for homosexuals.

But if you apply this to any sin that our culture doesn't want to privilege, it's shown as the sham it is. Take bestiality, for instance: if Phil Ryken and Stan Jones were to issue a statement announcing a support group for those who identify as "rutters"—let's say that were the name they took for themselves; if they explained that many rutters feel very alienated and are in danger of committing suicide because of how different they feel among their peers, what would our reaction be?

We'd howl.

And why?

Because no one yet has convinced our society that rutters have no control over their identity, over being into bestiality and identifying as "rutters." Then too, there hasn't yet been a rutters disease that's wiped out whole rutters' neighborhoods and left a generation of those identifying as rutters dead from their peculiar disease. In other words, so-called compassion has not yet done its work of softening everyone up to rutters. (And no, I'm not lacking compassion for those who have died of AIDS, but I am working to show the way AIDS has softened us up for acceptance of "homosexuality.")

Take murderers. What if a Ph.D. from Oxford with his TE from the PCA who is president of the proudest Evangelical academic institution in the world were to come out with a statement that he and his provost have created a support group for those who identify as murderers yet have agreed not to commit murder while students at Wheaton? You'd scratch your head, right? "A support group for those who identify as murderers? Can the man be serious? I thought he had a Ph.D.? I thought he was a Christian? But my friends tell me he's a good man and he used to be the Sr. Minister of one of the most prestigious tall-steeple Presbyterian churches in Philadelphia. What's going on, here?"

And so on.

Try it with feminism.

President Phil Ryken and Provost Stan Jones announced today that they have started a new support group for those who identify as feminists. This support group is in response to depressed and oppressed feminists feeling alienated at Wheaton; they say they feel different from their peers and colleagues at Wheaton and those closest to them report that, without such support group, some of them may be in danger of committing suicide. The President and his Provost tell us the critical nuance is between feminists and rebels. Say Drs. Ryken and Jones, "This group, while supporting those who are feminists, will continue to uphold Wheaton's proud tradition of teaching and adhering to God's Creation Order. It is understood that these feminists will not act out on their feminism. If married, we expect them to submit to their husbands, and we trust none of them will cross that line and live their identity out loud by preaching or teaching or exercising authority over men—particularly in any church."

But of course, that one's a joke, not least because Wheaton is a hotbed of feminism. Yet even if Wheaton still had a some small commitment to submit to the Word of God and confess and obey God's Creation Order of Adam, then Eve, we could imagine how ridiculous the above would look and sound. She's a feminist but she promises only to identify as one and not to act as one? What's that about?

We could go one and on. Rapists who have to commit violence against women in order to experience sexual satisfaction; they feel alienated and are in danger of suicide because of their angst resulting from their "difference" from the rest of the community—and of course, some insensitive brutes who privilege consensual sexuality and make no bones about their disapprobation of those who identify as rapists.

See how it doesn't work?

We could go on and on. Pederasts. Adulterers. Fornicators. Where would we stop?

Better to ask why we started such nonsense with homosexuality?

If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new. (2Corinthians 5:17) 

If this means anything, it means the Holy Spirit sanctifies us by removing our desire for sin whether that sin is rape, fornication, murder, gossip, greed, or homosexuality. Thus those who believe should "make no provision for the flesh." The greedy man should not threaten suicide because the church condemns his greed. How evil! The rapist should not threaten suicide because his fellow students condemn his rapist identity—say, for instance, his love of rap music. How evil!

There is not one other place where Christians are submitting to backmail and cowering in the corner just now. The menu is sodomy and homosexualists are in full dudgeon to stamp out any lingering witness that because of such wickedness the wrath of God descends on man. So they claim that homosexual tendencies aren't chosen and, being at the heart of a man or woman's identity, should be treated tenderly and accepted. And the way to do this moral shuffle within an Evangelical church or college is to talk about the "critical nuance" of homosexuality as opposed to homosexual acts. 

What bunk! What foolishness! What betrayal of the souls bedeviled by this cursed temptation! What lovelessness! What postmodern equivocation! What faithlessness.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1Corinthians 6:9-11)

Did you see that? "Of such WERE some of you." No politics of homosexual identity here. No coddling of the effeminate.

Just past tense—"were."

It's way too late in the day for Christians to get up to speed on the battle for God's Law surrounding us today. If Phil and Stan Jones were good men, they would understand these things and guard their sheep. And the way to guard them is clear. I ended the post with the path they must take:

I call on President Ryken and Provost Jones to reverse their position and change the nature of their LGBT group. Announce to everyone that it is now going to be a group designated to help those in bondage to homosexuality and effeminacy to repent and escape this bondage.

Unless, of course, Wheaton denies anyone needs to repent of effeminacy.

Simple, isn't it? So very simple.

But they won't.

Why not?

Because they use the ESV and the ESV has removed 'malakoi' from the text of God's Word. Two Greek words naming two distinct sins are compressed into one sin in the ESV:  'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitai' become "men who practice homosexuality." But of course, when the Holy Spirit inspires the Apostle Paul to write two words—not one—both words describing both sins should be translated. What word, what sin was left out by the ESV (published by Crossway across the tracks from Wheaton College)?


And what does 'malakaoi' mean?

My friend Dr. Robert Gagnon who is without question the top scholar on all things homosexual in Scripture writes

The word malakoi and its Latin equivalent molles (and their cognates) were often employed in antiquity in a restrictive sense; namely, to refer to adult males who were biologically and/or psychologically disposed to desire penetration by men and who actively feminized their appearance and manner as a means to attracting such partners.

The ESV removes this critical nuance inspired by the Holy Spirit and Wheaton's best and brightest start a support group for those Scripture calls the "effeminate" and Wheaton now calls "homosexuals."

It doesn't matter how nice these men are when you have them to dinner and ask them about inerrancy or their cat. It's the gap in the wall that shows them for what they are and the ability to distinguish between a salad and dinner fork matters not a whit when it comes to their duty to guard the souls under their watch-care. Feminism has long held Wheaton in bondage and their trustees and presidents and pastors of College Church in Wheaton across the front campus from Blanchard Hall have all known it good and well. To see Wheaton blithely move into homosexualist identity politics and cover it over with the whitewash of the very pair of sins that the ESV has deleted from 1Corinthians 6, taking the particular word deleted and building support groups for those given over to that sin, is very sad. Also damnable.

Some years back I invited my friend, Hudson Armerding, to Bloomington to preach. After the service he was greeting souls in the doorway of the church and, he told me later at dinner, a young woman stopped in the doorway and said she was getting her Ph.D. in Higher Ed. Administration and wondered if Dr. Armerding knew anyone who could mentor her as she pursued the presidency of a Christian college?

Dr. Armerding told me this and said he hoped he had not caused me problems with his response? He went on: "I told her that I saw the president of a Christian college as a pastor to the community and I didn't think it was Scriptural for a woman to hold that position."

Hudson Armerding was president of Wheaton College from 1962-1985. He recently went to be with the Lord.

I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.


That was a very helpful response Mr Bayly, - should be main-paged!

One question concerning the definition of malakoi you quoted:

...who actively feminized their appearance and manner as a means to attracting such partners.

Does this imply that a man with a feminized appearance who is not seeking to attract such partners is *not* effeminate?

I'm a professional writer/editor and a Wheaton alum. I'm familiar with the conduct policies that existed in my day there. I've also written pro and con material about my Wheaton experience. Lastly, I did a senior project while at the college for a ministry that helped men get out of the homosexual lifestyle.

I read the CNN source Bayly responds to, and it's a murky piece of work. In fact, you can read just about any position you want back into it. In short, not good journalism.

If someone is going to say Wheaton has changed it's policies and gone soft on homosexuality, then someone needs to get his reporter's hat on, go interview the principals of the college, ask point-blank questions, and write a serious piece of journalism on any potential policy changes.


The CNN Beliefnet piece is fluff and not worthy of commentary. Trying to make position statements in Wheaton's name based on it is a waste of everyone's time.

>>I'm a professional writer/editor and a Wheaton alum (and) I read the CNN source Bayly responds to...

Had you had clicked through, you would have found that my source was the February 22, 2013 issue of Wheaton's student newspaper, "The Record"—not CNN.

This quote came from the Record

The distinction between the condemnation of homosexual behavior versus homosexuality is what (Provost Stan) Jones said is the critical nuance about the Community Covenant.

"...The Community Covenant does not condemn homosexuality; it condemns homosexual conduct as one example of sexual immorality," Jones said, "so that’s one of the fundamental ways that we have to in a sense ‘clean up our language’ and try to be rigorous in the way that we think.”

So there you have it, and as a matter of fact, I didn't read the CNN piece.

If you comment again, please use your real first and last names. Thanks.


>>Does this imply that a man with a feminized appearance who is not seeking to attract such partners is *not* effeminate?

No, not at all. There are many reasons for effeminacy, some cultivated and others accidental. And not all effeminacy is to identify as a homosexual.

BTW, it is up on the main page as a separate post.


Great thanks.

But then that seems to mean that the kind of effeminacy that 1Cor6:9 has in mind is only the kind that seeks to attract male partners.

Ergo, it seems we can't use that verse to warn against heterosexual effeminacy, no?

Let me clarify something. To say a man is a homosexual is not to say a man has an orientation which is homosexual. We do not call a man tempted to look at another man's wife lustfully an "adulterer" nor do we call a man who is constantly tempted to look at other men's wives lustfully an "adulterer." We don't identify a man according to his sin. Period.

As I've said several times now, there's a difference between a support group for those striving to defeat homosexual desires and a support group "for homosexuals." Among Christians, there is not such thing as a "homosexual." There are only men "tempted by homosexual desires."

Concerning "homosexuals" and "effeminate," the most we can say is "of such were some of you."

In thirty years of ministry, I've always cautioned men and women tempted by homosexual intimacy never ever to label or identify themselves as "homosexuals." Rather they should say they have repented of homosexuality. They are former effeminates or homosexuals.


>>the kind of effeminacy that 1Cor6:9 has in mind is only the kind that seeks to attract male partners. Ergo, it seems we can't use that verse to warn against heterosexual effeminacy, no?

The thrust of the passage is sexual immorality, and effeminacy is sexual immorality whether its object or motivation is homosexual or heterosexual. This is the reason Calvin speaks of cross-dressing as the violation of modesty and a sin against the Seventh Commandment. Not confessing our sex in purity is a violation of the Seventh Commandment.

Here's the Westminster Larger Catechism on the Seventh Commandment:

Q. 137. Which is the seventh commandment?

A. The seventh commandment is, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Q. 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?

A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.

Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

Effeminacy is immodesty. I know it's tough to get our minds around this when the ESV demonstrates our culture's hatred for the very concept and Reformed Evangelicals' cowering in the face of the homosexualist onslaught, but here it is in black and white. Calvin says about the Seventh Commandment:

This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet (Juvenal) are very true: “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?”

- John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, tr. Charles Bingham, 22 vols., (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, repr. 1996), 3:110.


Thanks brother for keeping us informed. I am the pastor from Milwaukee who enjoys reading your post. We need to stand firm even more with all the bastion falling around us.

Really long article. Surprised CNN gave so much space to it. I noticed the byline was Sarah Pulliam Bailey. Is that Russ Pulliam's daughter?

>>Is that Russ Pulliam's daughter?

Daughter, niece, or something—that's what I assumed. The Wheaton Record piece is more revealing, though.



Your link about the Wheaton College "Wellness Housing" is from a different Wheaton College--the one in Norton, Mass., which is not a Christian institution.

Add new comment